SCIENCE IS DEBATE AT IT’S VERY CORE. Science lives or dies through debate and criticism, unless you’re an alarmist scientist or politician. Then contrary voices had better shut up.

Here we see a scientist in a line of research unconnected to climatology (unless danger associated with tilapia consumption is caused by global warming too, and I’m sure they’ll claim that soon enough). This medical scientist is describing exactly what I’ve tried to convey in this blog for months—SCIENCE IS DEBATEAT IT’S VERY CORE. Science lives or dies through debate and criticism, unless you’re an alarmist scientist or politician. Then contrary voices had better shut up.

He also lets slip another interesting anecdote. When the potential to make or lose money is involved, the voices who stand to potentially lose money can become deafening in their shrill protests. The AGW parallel here involves all the business concerns related to “climate change.” Global warming is now a huge industry, from carbon credits to biofuels to hybrid cars to alternative energy to light bulbs to federally-funded climate research. There’s a lot of money to be made, so long as global warming remains “real” and unquestioned in the minds of the public (i.e., so long as they can keep most sheep believing).

The study appeared in this month's issue of Journal of the American Dietetic Association, which also featured a report that offered a mixed review of the Wake findings. Chilton will have the opportunity to respond to the critical report in a coming issue of the journal.

Dr. William Applegate, the dean of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, said that criticism, including from colleagues, is an inherent, and sometimes helpful, part of the advancement of science.

"The higher the financial stake involved in a study, the greater the level of industry criticism tends to be generated," Applegate said.

I’m dumbfounded by this elitist, left-coast, liberal arrogance. Neat to pick up on the fact that, when these liberals go off script (when “impatiently” dealing with those pesky questions that few in the media seem willing to ask them anymore), they really show their true colors.

With fewer than 20 legislative days before the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1, the entire appropriations process has largely ground to a halt because of the ham-handed fighting that followed Republican attempts to lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration. And after promising fairness and open debate, Pelosi has resorted to hard-nosed parliamentary devices that effectively bar any chance for Republicans to offer policy alternatives.

“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”

“I respect the office that I hold,” she says. “And when you win the election, you win the majority, and what is the power of the speaker? To set the agenda, the power of recognition, and I am not giving the gavel away to anyone.”

WASHINGTON – Blacks are more likely to be hurt by global warming than other Americans, according to a report issued Thursday.

The report was authored by the Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative, a climate justice advocacy group, and Redefining Progress, a nonprofit policy institute. It detailed various aspects of climate change, such as air pollution and rising temperatures, which it said disproportionately affect blacks, minorities and low-income communities in terms of poor health and economic loss.

“Right now we have an opportunity to see climate change in a different light; to see it for what it is, a human rights issue on a dangerous collision course of race and class,” said Nia Robinson, director of the Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative. “While it’s an issue that affects all of us, like many other social justice issues, it is disproportionately affecting African-Americans, other people of color, low-income people and indigenous communities.”

British billionaire Sir Richard Branson and American aerospace designer Burt Rutan on Monday showed off their mothership, which is designed to air launch a passenger-toting spaceship out of the atmosphere.

The rollout — a year after a deadly accident at Rutan's test site — marks the start of a rigorous flight test program that space tourism advocates hope will climax with the first suborbital joy rides by the end of the decade.

More than 250 wannabe astronauts have paid $200,000 or put down deposits for a chance to float weightless for a mere five minutes.

Otherformer alarmist scientistshaveCOMPLETELY REVERSED THEIR ONCE FIERY BELIEFS, and now they face the same persecution that they once doled out to their braver colleagues, who courageously stood up, cried foul, and were lambasted for it (and still are).

Some climatologists, however, saw the writing on the wall and tried to issue revisionist predictions on the climate (La Nina would now "mask" global warming for 10-20 years, LOL!). This was all done in an attempt to save face, protect reputations, and institute damage control, while still keeping the pipe-dream of CO2-induced warming alive.

Even this article below engages in all sorts of damage control (I've bolded those portions)! We see “La Nina” below, as well as the oft-sited “IPCC.” This is what alarmists do to keep the AGW fart aloft; they throw around "PC" words (“IPCC” and “consensus”) that are designed to explain-away contrary empirical and scientific evidence and silence legitimate debate and criticism. They even attempt to hold on to the already thoroughly debunked "stronger hurricane" theory that Al Gore loves so much.

Many of the original IPCC member scientists are actually skeptics and have denounced the IPCC’s reports, and there’s NO SUCH RULE THAT A "CONSENSUS" IN SCIENCE IS DEEMED UNASSAILABLE (real science has nothing to do with any consensus). Don’t believe that maverick thinkers are usually proven correct in science? What about Einstein, Darwin, Hawking, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, and the list goes on? These are all scientists who bucked the consensus of their day.

What is clear is that the Earth warms and cools within the bounds of natural climate cycles THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ARROGANT HUMANS who think they can somehow affect this overwhelmingly powerful planet. We are nothing to this planet except another insignificant species. Even if we destroyed ourselves with every last nuclear weapon on Earth, the Earth would eventually recover and life would go on (our Earth's archeological record has shown this to occur many times naturally).

The coldest summer ever? You might be looking at it, weather folks say.

Right now the so-called summer of '08 is on pace to produce the fewest days ever recorded in which the temperature in Anchorage managed to reach 65 degrees.

That unhappy record was set in 1970, when we only made it to the 65-degree mark, which many Alaskans consider a nice temperature, 16 days out of 365.

This year, however -- with the summer more than half over -- there have been only seven 65-degree days so far. And that's with just a month of potential "balmy" days remaining and the forecast looking gloomy.

****

So are all bets off on global warming? Hardly, scientists say. Climate change is a function of long-term trends, not single summers or individual hurricanes.

Last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it's "unequivocal" the world is warming, considering how 11 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past 13 years.

So what's going on in Alaska, which also posted a fairly frigid winter?

Thursday, July 24, 2008

A former global warming alarmist and creator of the model that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol says that while global warming is real, there is no evidence that the main cause is carbon emissions. David Evans says that CO2 emissions play — at most — a minor role.

Evans writes in The Australian newspaper that if global warming was caused by CO2, scientists would have found hot spots about six miles up in the earth's atmosphere over the Tropics. Evans describes those hot spots as the signature of the greenhouse effect. He says scientists have been trying to locate them for years using thermometers attached to weather balloons.

But he says years of research "show no hot spot — whatsoever" adding that "an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming."

Senator Barbara Boxer (who has no scientific credentials whatsoever) challenges a leading climate scientist (formerly with NASA), AGW skeptic, and IPCC member with a political zinger and thinks that this debunks anything technical he just said? She just verified that she's a huge moron, which I already knew. This sham is so audaciously transparent!

These alarmists never debate based on scientific findings, counter-theories, fundamental climatology, or raw data such as presented in Dr. Spencer's testimony; it's always "you're in bed with big oil," "you're Rush Limbaugh's chosen climate expert," "but the consensus says...", "the IPCC says...", "you're a denier," "you're a flat-earther," or "you're an outlier." Stop name-calling and insults as your only retort to real knowledge in some lame attempt to discredit an antithetical view; to do so means you're just a zealot--arguing so that your belief isn't shaken.

Here's news for you alarmists...Roy Spencer, just like climate expert Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, is part of the UN's IPCC, even though they disagreed with what was put in those IPCC reports that made bold, questionable proclamations about man's role in the climate. They're in that group of scientists conveniently portrayed by political hacks like Boxer, Cullen, Reid, Gore, Nye, and so on as part of the "consensus," when nothing could be further from the truth! When these "consensus" scientists stand up and scream, "I didn't say that!" the political hacks are quick to jump on them with irrelevant banter in an attempt discredit and silence them. Dr. Spencer, don't you know you're just supposed to shut up and take it? That's how alarmists work.

Don't believe that alarmists only shout, name-call, insult, or anything else except debate based on the actual scientific knowledge? Watch this video and see for yourself (warning: ADULT LANGUAGE!). This is the sort of baloney we're up against--thoughtless minors who've been brainwashed by the media, politicians, and overzealous professors. He keeps spouting "science" throughout this diatribe, but I'm still waiting to hear his "conclusive science":

Alarmists always spew “consensus” and “IPCC” when attempting to disallow debate with people (even really smart scientists) they consider to be “non-believers.” They’re not willing to admit it yet, but there are tens-of-thousands of “denying” scientists out there, including scientists once on the IPCC (like Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT).

We’ve seen the petition of >31,000 skeptical scientists, many who ONCE BELIEVED BUT NOW HAVE TURNED AGAINST AGW as an unassailable truth. As the article says, there is a “considerable presence of skeptics.” Al Gore can no longer claim that denying scientists are “outliers,” because the outliers are now in the thousands-upon-thousands, and this number is growing. This doesn’t include the scientists who are keeping their opinions secret because they’ve witnessed some of their colleagues professionally tarred-and-feathered for questioning manmade climate change; these guys and gals have been getting the “Scarlet Letter” treatment for years. That’s all changing now.

This scam is finally being exposed for what it is—nothing but complete garbage. I feel that, apart from the fairy tale of global warming that continues alive-and-well in the media, the tide in real scientific circles is finally turning in the direction of REAL SCIENCE and TRUTH! Real scientists see that it’s BS, and they don’t want to be among the last ones left saying that an indefensible theory is fact. Look for the floodgates to open now; it’s going to be like rats fleeing a sinking ship.

There are numerous, vexing questions. Which mainstream news source (e.g., CNN, CBS, NYT, LAT, etc.) will be the first to cover a story like this one, where the reporters seriously question the validity of global warming and the “consensus”? When will Al Gore return his Nobel Prize and Oscar after being completely exposed as the fraud and charlatan that he is? When will Heidi Cullen’s climate show be cancelled? Will Dr. Hansen lose his job at NASA for wasting government resources for over twenty years? Will the POTUS candidates acknowledge reality?

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a

considerable presence within the scientific communityof people whodo not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."

According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."

Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years

the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

Trying to compare Al Gore to Kennedy seems like trying to compare Darth Vader to Luke Skywalker; this goo-goo-eyed, Gore-lovin' AP reporter is making a bit of stretch. However, Gore’s right about a few things in this piece: First, Obama and McCain are both climate change believers, so we’re stuck there; the best for which we can hope is that McCain can be dissuaded from his stupidity once elected. And second, we do need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil for national security reasons. Other than that, Gore goes skipping down Tree-hugger Lane while spouting his usual, trite alarmist rants and overly optimistic views on the potential of renewable energy.

These non-nuclear, non-petrol solutions (i.e., wind and solar) are not efficient enough to replace current demand, and they’re very expensive to implement. I’m not saying we shouldn’t pursue these alternatives, but we should DIVERSIFY our energy sources. In other words, don’t put all your eggs in one basket! Let’s do nuclear, oil, coal, solar, and wind! Forget this global warming nonsense; let’s get real and do something positive for our security and economy, instead of scaring people with a nonexistent problem.

Senator Voinovich in the article below this one puts it much better than I ever could! And let's not forget Al Gore's prediction of doom which he made in January 2006...can't wait to see if that one holds true. We now have only seven years left to survive global warming.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Just as John F. Kennedy set his sights on the moon, Al Gore is challenging the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years, an audacious goal he hopes the next president will embrace.

The Nobel Prize-winning former vice president said fellow Democrat Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain are "way ahead" of most politicians in the fight against global climate change.

Rising fuel costs, climate change and the national security threats posed by U.S. dependence on foreign oil are conspiring to create "a new political environment" that Gore said will sustain bold and expensive steps to wean the nation off fossil fuels.

***

"This is an investment that will pay itself back many times over," Gore said. "It's an expensive investment but not compared to the rising cost of continuing to invest in fossil fuels."

Called an alarmist by conservatives, Gore has made combatting global warming his signature issue, a campaign that has been recognized worldwide - from an Academy Award to a Nobel Prize. He portrayed Thursday's speech as the latest and most important phase in his effort to build public opinion in favor of alternative fuels.

He knows politicians fear to act unless voters are willing to sacrifice - and demand new fuels.

You can consider Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) as definitely not enthused by former Vice President Al Gore's speech Thursday on U.S. energy policy.

Voinovich had an initial one-word response — "ridiculous" — to Gore's speech at Washington's Constitution Hall, in which the Democrat called for the United States to end its dependence on carbon-based fuels and begin using renewable energy to produce electricity within the next 10 years.

Voinovich elaborated that ruling out carbon-based fuels such as coal would be unreasonable because of the country's vast energy and economic needs. Instead, he said the country should take a multi-pronged approach that includes but doesn't rely solely on nuclear, wind and solar power.

"We could put windmills from the Atlantic to the Pacific and, yes, it will increase the amount of carbon-free energy production, but the fact of the matter is, it's not going to get the job done," Voinovich said. "What we need to do is to look at all of the various sources of energy… We'd be much more realistic to realize that it's going to take all of these things in order for us to meet our energy demands."

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Robert Redford (as well as other celebrities) continue to show what utter dimwits they are when it comes to the climate (they're mostly stupid and insular about any political issue). Hey Bob, why not stick your poetry in your ear and, instead, throw some of your considerable liberal, elitist wealth into the fight?

Redford spoke with Lauren Whitehead, associate director of Youth Speaks, and Simone Crew, slam poet and participant in "Brave New Voices: Youth Speaks! 11th International Youth Poetry Slam," on Talk of the Nation about his latest project and getting young people involved in the fight against global warming.

Ha ha ha...this is so funny and cool (literally and figuratively) that I can hardly stand it! Alaska is experiencing a DARN COLD SUMMER, and the people there are bummed: They want the warm '04 and '05 summer again. LOL!

This is empirical evidence, of course, but the alarmists have no problem pointing out record warmth (and anything else weird in the weather) as proof of global warming. However, this AK summer weather is NORMAL, so it's tough to call it a troubling climate signal. We realists are just giving them a taste of their own stupid medicine.

People are exchanging their flip-flops and shorts for close-toed shoes and fleece more than usual this summer.

The cool, gloomy weather is almost as hot a topic in town as steep gas prices.

But forecasters and climatologists say that while temperatures are below average, they aren't reaching any notable extremes. Problem is, the gray skies over Southcentral this year are following several years of pretty nice weather.

"I think there's a perception thing because there's been a lot of cloud cover this summer," said Sam Albanese, a forecaster with the National Weather Service in Anchorage.

"Really what's happening this year is nothing extraordinary. ... It's just that '04 and '05 were so (warm and sunny) ... and it's so fresh in people's memories that people think, 'Wow, this is so cold.' "

Okay, so what does global warming cause? Well, EVERYTHING! Let’s go right to the source; read the news articles yourself—it will take you WEEKS to read them all. If you believe these fear-mongering idiotic stories then you believe that global warming is worse than any plague that has ever beleaguered mankind, because the warmlist and the GASP! series show just how stupid the "blame game" has become with alarmist scientists and their sycophants--the media. Kidney stones, cannibalism, extinctions of all sorts, increased infections, just to name a few. The list is long and sordid. And stupid.

All of these awful things are ascribed to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Global warming is allegedly caused by increasing CO2 (still a minor greenhouse gas compared to water and methane), and anthropogenic CO2 increases have been attributed to Western-styled capitalism prevailing in the world (read “American-styled” capitalism). So, how do we cure all these ills? We hurt capitalism and all things capitalistic. Very simple solution. Harm capitalism and less CO2 is emitted; return more control to “government” to help “manage” CO2, and AGW will subside. Now you can see the truth of politics in play behind this supposed “scientific endeavor” to save the planet. So, it’s truly about politics, power, and profit (the 3 Ps), including believing scientists who need to continue their federally-funded climate research indefinitely in order demand government action. Quite a little scam they're all involved in together!

Open up epidemiological journals from 1998 (the so-called highest global mean temperature ever--which is statistically hilarious to assert) and peruse the data from then until now (a decade later). On almost all fronts, world health is IMPROVING. Mortality is not increasing; people ARE LIVING LONGER THAN EVER BEFORE. The mean lifespan for human beings is expanding, not shrinking. So how does that fact jibe with what this article is portending?

If there is warming (and there's not), it's actually IMPROVING OUR LIVES according to the epidemiological evidence. The theory espoused in this article is that the alleged period of warming (since before the "really warm" 1998)--and I do mean "ALLEGED"--has hurt human health, which is the opposite of the actual statistical evidence we have on-hand. For instance, in the United States alone, the adult mortality rate DROPPED 11 points for males and DROPPED 35 points for females from 1990 to 2006! (source: World Health Organization) That's nearly the entire decade since 1998, and as you can see HEALTH IS IMPROVING!!!

And climate history has shown that true warm periods do improve the health of populations and increase economic growth; just look at the Medieval Warm Period for your historical proof (a span of time climate alarmists would like you to forget about).

When did a real news article ever say the White House “buried” something? Is this an editorial? Oh no, wait...it’s the New York Crimes. My bad...should have known. No wonder they’re near collapse.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Government scientists detailed a rising death toll from heat waves, wildfires, disease and smog caused by global warming in an analysis the White House buried so it could avoid regulating greenhouse gases.

''Risk (to human health, society and the environment) increases with increases in both the rate and magnitude of climate change,'' scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency said. Global warming, they wrote, is ''unequivocal'' and humans are to blame.

The document suggests that extreme weather events and diseases carried by ticks and other organisms could kill more people as temperatures rise.

Allergies could worsen because climate change could produce more pollen. Smog, a leading cause of respiratory illness and lung disease, could become more severe in many parts of the country. At the same time, global warming could mean fewer illnesses and deaths due to cold.

Monday, July 14, 2008

I almost can't type this because of laughter. Yes, once again...review the warmlist to get a feel for all the scare stories--ALL THE THINGS THE MEDIA TELLS US GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES. After that, read the GASP! series here. You'll learn how silly all this has become. If you can read all these "RESULTS" of global warming and still not laugh, you deserve some nice Kool-Aid to help ease the heat from all the warming and nail biting.

More Americans are likely to suffer from kidney stones in the coming years as a result of global warming, according to researchers at the University of Texas.

Kidney stones, which are formed from dissolved minerals in the urine and can be extremely painful, are often caused by caused by dehydration, either by not drinking enough liquid or losing too much due to high heat conditions.

If global warming trends continue as projected by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, the United States can expect as much as a 30 percent growth in kidney stone disease in some of its driest areas, said the findings published in Monday's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The increased incidence of disease would represent between 1.6 million and 2.2 million cases by 2050, costing the US economy as much as one billion dollars in treatment costs.

Talk about a far-reaching claim! These guys decided to pitch a tent on a floating chunk of ice in September of last year (as we started to have that record cold season we weren't supposed to have), and now they’re surprised the ice chunk is melting in the midst of summer? Notice that they were going to evacuate it anyway. Why? Because IT WAS GOING TO MELT ANYWAY! Very deceptive, these alarmist-advocates.

That last sentence is just retarded. I don’t know how these morons transcend the considerable gulf between “melting ice in July” and “global warming.” Yes, warmth melts ice, but relative warmth is normal in the Arctic at this time of year. Therefore, more warmth equals less ice. Duh! The question: is CO2 causing the warming that's melting the ice? No. The summer is causing the warming that's melting the ice!

I predicted that the alarmists would take the normal heat of summer and turn it into the global warming boogeyman; it’s opportunism at its finest. It’s easier for the advocates to convince the sheep that there’s manmade global warming when it’s actually warm outside due to summer...especially when ice melts.

MOSCOW — Russian scientists are evacuating a research station built on an Arctic ice floe because global warming has melted the ice to a fraction of its original size, a spokesman said.

The North Pole-35 station, where 21 researchers and two dogs live in huts, will be taken off the floe in the western Arctic Ocean this week instead of in late August as originally planned, said Sergei Balyasnikov of the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute in St. Petersburg.

The research crew landed in early September on the 1.2- by 2.5-mile floe near the Severnaya Zemlya archipelago. During its westward drift of more than 1,550 miles, the floe shrank to just 1,000 by 2,000 feet.

"The evacuation is ahead of schedule because of global warming," Balyasnikov said.

Saturday, July 12, 2008

We already know that liberals and certain conservatives want to hurt our economy to "fight global warming for our grandkids" Am I lying? Bill Clinton said it himself--read it and weep. There's a ton of proof right here in this blog listing the antics of liberal alarmists, and the solutions always involve slowing, eliminating, or hindering some vestige of capitalism. Here's more proof in this article. The liberal believers at the EPA want to do all sorts of damage to our way of life (capitalism) in the name of "saving the planet." Guess what? You can't save something that IS NOT IN DANGER!

WASHINGTON — While others criticized the Bush administration's inaction on greenhouse gases, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe warned Friday that it has put in place a scenario that will bankrupt the U.S. economy.

A key player in the years-long debate over climate change, the Oklahoma Republican agreed that using the Clean Air Act to put new regulations in place would be an unprecedented expansion of the Environmental Protection Agency's authority that would impact every household.

"Obviously the concept of regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act is flawed and the act must be amended by Congress," Inhofe said.

"Today's notice should concern all lawmakers; no one should want the EPA to exercise the kind of power and authority that the career staff at EPA contemplates."

Last month, he said, the Senate rejected a "cap-and-trade" proposal that would allow companies to buy or sell allowances depending on their level of pollution.

"It is ironic that the EPA has proposed an even more economically destructive scheme this close to that bill's demise," Inhofe said.

"If Congress does not act, then the resulting regulations could be the largest regulatory intrusion into Americans' personal lives, a nightmare scenario.

ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE (AP) - Pope Benedict XVI said Saturday he wants to wake up consciences on climate change during his pilgrimage in Australia.

Benedict also told reporters while flying to Sydney to start a 10-day visit that he would work for "healing and reconciliation with the victims" of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy there "just as I did in the United States" earlier this year.

Less than an hour after the pope's flight took off from Rome, Benedict walked back to the section where journalists sat and met with them for about 15 minutes. He called on five journalists to ask questions that had been submitted to the Vatican earlier in the week.

And to hear the stupidity coming from Schwarzen-egg-head should be surprising, but it isn't. He's another hypocrite, driving his huge Humvees, flying to work everyday, and consuming more energy in a day than most of use in a month, just like the liberal hypocrites who are doing the same thing. Politically, he's got a lot to lose too if he doesn't back the boondoggle, because California typically backs anything that limits capitalism.

Also quite funny to hear him slam Bush, because Bush is a believer in global warming--at least he says he is publicly. Maybe he's just saying that to stall, and if he is I applaud him for his brilliant chess move.

"This administration did not believe in global warming," Schwarzenegger told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview that will air Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

"They just didn't believe in it or they didn't believe that they should do anything about it, since China is not doing anything about it and since India is not willing to do the same thing, so why should we do the same thing?" Schwarzenegger said.

Friday, July 11, 2008

Before I do the usual work of ripping this fear piece apart with fact, scientific reasoning, and cold logic, please notice the hysteria and hyperbole of the headline itself. We see these stories every few weeks in the environmentally-ignorant, agenda-driven media. Here was a similar piece where we saw that ice melts in the Arctic are "receding like mad." Then we always see antithetical stories where the ice isn’t as bad as once thought, and then we see counter-stories from the media believers that proclaim “newly-formed ice” isn’t as good as “old ice.” And on it goes...the usual media fear templates that are on the circular conveyor: ice is melting, hurricanes are strengthening, floods are growing, fire is raging, animals are going extinct, tornados are forming, diseases are expanding, and on it goes. FEAR, DOOM, DOOM, DOOOOOOMMM!!!! And it’s all a bunch of baloney. You can read the extensive list of silly “global warming results” on the warmlist; check that list out and ask yourself if the media’s campaign is ridiculous or not. The GASP! series illustrates the extent of the media’s propaganda campaign too—check it out.

And the common thread connecting ice stories is that these glaciers and ice fields are being monitored for changes by satellites year-to-year, and how long have satellites been circling (or stationary) up there, compared to the age of the Earth? Are we making inane proclamations based on statistically-flawed comparisons?

Our “measurements” of ice obtained from satellites compared to records of the same ice over a statistically-acceptable length of time are truly impossible to verify as incontrovertible; the baseline of time is too small compared to the Earth’s total age. In other words, WE’RE INCORRECTLY MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE EARTH BASED ON A RIDICULOUSLY TINY SPAN OF TIME. Satellites have been used for 40 or so years, and satellites that are good enough to “measure” ice have been up there for how long? I’d wager far less than 40 years.

A good analogy to what they’re doing would be to observe a single nanosecond of one year, noticing that at that exact nanosecond the wind changed from 5 mph to 10 mph, and then concluding that our world will obviously be destroyed by this scary doubling in wind speed, if the “trend in acceleration” continues unabated!!! For you alarmist psychos who aren’t savvy enough to follow the allegory, I’m saying that a nanosecond taken out of a year as a period of observation is STATISTICALLY TOO DAMN SMALL to draw silly, far reaching conclusions; a nanosecond is one-billionth of a second, and there are a hell of a lot of nanoseconds in a day, much less a year (5.256 x 10^14 nanoseconds in one year to be exact). Well, taking 30 years of observations (even if they can be shown to be absolutely accurate and unassailable) out of the 4.5 billion years that the Earth has existed (meaning that you’re missing 150 million similar periods of observation), and making bold climate proclamations of doom based on that very small span (30 years out of 4.5 billion years) is similarly retarded. I can’t understand for the life of me how someone in the media hasn’t caught on to this silliness yet, though some have in a few places.

Notice how they make the claim that the ice has been stable “most of the last century.” Really? We see it breaking up now with satellites, but we know with certainty the same ice NOT OBSERVED BY SATELLITES was stable for the last century? Are you laughing yet? You should be...

New evidence has emerged that a large plate of floating ice shelf attached to Antarctica is breaking up, in a troubling sign of global warming, the European Space Agency (ESA) said on Thursday.

Images taken by its Envisat remote-sensing satellite show that Wilkins Ice Shelf is "hanging by its last thread" to Charcot Island, one of the plate's key anchors to the Antarctic peninsula, ESA said in a press release.

"Since the connection to the island... helps stabilise the ice shelf, it is likely the breakup of the bridge will put the remainder of the ice shelf at risk," it said.

Wilkins Ice Shelf had been stable for most of the last century, covering around 16,000 square kilometres (6,000 square miles), or about the size of Northern Ireland, before it began to retreat in the 1990s.

Since then several large areas have broken away, and two big breakoffs this year left only a narrow ice bridge about 2.7 kilometres (1.7 miles) wide to connect the shelf to Charcot and nearby Latady Island.

Remember the article about eco-therapy? Well, here’s what’s happening in Australia on a similar note. The propaganda being forced on news consumers via Al Gore and his disciples (Hansen, Cullen, Nye, Reid, Boxer, etc.) is frightening some to the point that they won’t even consume water anymore. They’d rather DIE than contribute to global warming; this would be funny if it weren’t so serious.

When you stop yourself from consuming water because you think you’re worsening “global warming,” you are DRINKING THE FRICKIN’ KOOL-AID.

This entire doomsday cult of global warming is akin to the Jonestown phenomenon of the 1970s. “Reverend Jim Jones” Gore, the messiah of this new religion, is imploring all of you to drink the Kool-Aid with him, so how many of you will snap out of it before it’s too late? When you stop yourself from consuming water because you think you’re worsening “global warming,” you are DRINKING THE FRICKIN’ KOOL-AID.

WAKE UP PEOPLE! See the truth of this; don’t just accept the talking points and foregone conclusions that the media creates and recycles week-to-week. Remember the 8-glasses-of-water-per-day myth? That was perpetuated in the media too (the LA Times had a hand in it), and at some point, it became a foregone conclusion without any basis in scientific fact. It turns out that drinking this much water was never officially sanctioned by any medical body as a prerequisite for good health. But how many of us dutifully followed the advice to drink, drink, drink?!! This proves our susceptibility to the media's control. Obviously, the poor climate-change-fearing soul in the article below has thrown this mythical guidance out the window.

Will Americans ever stop just blindly accepting what they’re told, or will they actually investigate all sides of an issue before making an informed stand (or in this case, a hysterical, psychologically-damaged stand)? How can they when all they hear is that "the debate's over" and "we're all going to DIE?"

Another neat comparison with "global warming"? The Salem Witch Trials. I say that merely for the hysteria level involved and also the "proof" used to show that these innocent people were "witches." Don’t believe there’s hysteria? Just read the warmlist and see what ills are being ascribed by the media to our modern, mobile way of life; it’s ridiculous to behold, and the list itself is all the proof needed that we’re dealing with a classic sham. The GASP! series here also helps paint the picture.

So, the media is getting caught with its hand in the cookie jar by modern technology, because in times past, people couldn’t cross-reference what the media put out into the world. The Internet and free flow of information now makes it possible to catch the media in its stupid indoctrination games and then expose those games for all to see. This blog is mainly meant as just that—a media cross-reference. My entire goal is to show the stupidity of the media’s environmental coverage by using their own publications as proof that they’re complicit in the sham. The warmlist paints this picture perfectly, for when one sees EVERYTHING that AGW supposedly causes as collectively published by the media, it becomes clear how overwhelmingly stupid the propaganda machine has become.

Sticking with the Witch Trial comparison apart from the hysteria factor, the “accused” aren’t witches in this case—they’re “deniers”, “flat earthers,” or skeptics like me (we prefer “climate realists”), and the alarmist warmaholics want nothing more than to burn our ilk at the stake for our heresy of daring to question what the “consensus” says.

The consensus is a manufactured joke, by the way. Science IS NOT A CONSENSUS! And many IPCC scientists have denounced the way the UN portrayed their inputs in all of these climate reports, basically stating that their findings were warped to paint a certain picture and cause certain political actions. By the way, at least 31,000+ scientists out there have signed a petition DENYING global warming, but you don't hear the media mentioning them do you? And I proclaim that thousands more are keeping the mouths shut about their true educated beliefs, because they need to keep their jobs.

PSYCHIATRISTS have detected the first case of "climate change delusion" - and they haven't even yet got to Kevin Rudd and his global warming guru.

Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of our Royal Children's Hospital say this delusion was a "previously unreported phenomenon".

"A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events."

(So have Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, Profit of Doom Al Gore and Sir Richard Brazen, but I digress.)

"The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of millions of people through exhaustion of water supplies."

But never mind the poor boy, who became too terrified even to drink. What's scarier is that people in charge of our Government seem to suffer from this "climate change delusion", too.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

This one is easy to pick apart. Pay attention, climate alarmists. First, of all...President Bush is one of the cretins backing government action on this nonsense of manmade climate change, along with John McCain. For whatever reason, many conservatives have jumped on board with the boondoggle, and it's my belief that liberals don't really want them on "their territory"--Democrats don't want the climate change issue fogged over for them. Liberals and Democrats want climate change as a wedge issue for themselves, while some Republicans have tossed reason out the window in favor of political expediency.

Second, please see the previous post where I wrote about how scientists at the EPA are being pressured to bias their results. Who's pressuring them? The April 2008 articles on this subject never point fingers, except to say that political figures on both sides (Republicans and Democrats) are pressuring EPA scientists, so it appears that one group of politicians wants them to bias for and the other to bias against AGW. This is funny, since Heidi Cullen, Weather Channel vixen of the climate, told us that global warming is not a political issue at all. My read on this older article is that the AP wanted readers to draw the conclusion that Republicans were pressuring EPA scientists to bias against climate change, without ever saying it openly. I believe that Democrats are pressuring EPA scientists to advocate for government action on climate change, which doesn't exist by the way.

Third, according to Rasmussen the Congressional approval rating (yes, the DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED CONGRESS FOR TWO YEARS NOW) has just fallen to SINGLE DIGITS at 9%!!! (Far lower than President Bush's dismal approval ratings.) Besides, Senator Boxer is one of the liberalist of liberals out of California, a state so leftist that Che himself would love living there. It's not a good time to be talking about energy conservation when Americans are already being hammered on energy costs just to keep their homes comfortable and drive to work each day; I have no clue why Democrats don't get this...but they will if Americans keep growing angrier. So far, we're driving less and reducing our demand, but oil supplies remain tight because of worldwide demand (and market speculation).

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A leading U.S. Senate Democrat accused the Bush administration on Tuesday of a "cover-up" aimed at stopping the Environmental Protection Agency from tackling greenhouse emissions.

As of 5 p.m. EDT Tuesday, the center of the storm was about 620 miles east-northeast of the northern Leeward Islands and about 900 miles southeast of Bermuda.

Maximum sustained winds decreased to 85 mph with some higher gusting. The storm is expected to continue weakening over the next couple of days. The Atlantic season's first hurricane is headed to the northwest at about 12 mph.

Bertha is expected to continue heading toward Bermuda. Forecasters urged people on the island to continue monitoring the storm's progress. Large swells and high surfs could affect portion of Bermuda late tomorrows.

I'm sure my fellow life science aficionados will enjoy learning that CO2 is good for plants. I believe this is basic scientific knowledge with which most high school freshman are thoroughly familiar--photosynthesis, of which CO2 is a key ingredient.

These German scientists are obviously brilliant, especially when you read the climate disclaimer they made sure to insert below (which I've bolded for you). They don't want you (or their brainwashed colleagues) getting any funny ideas about their results; CO2 is still a scourge to hysterical alarmists out there, even if scientific evidence and empirical evidence continues to say otherwise.

The dangerous rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may be troubling scientists and world leaders but it could prove to be a boon for plants, German researchers said Tuesday.

Increasing exposure to carbon dioxide appears to boost crop yields, Hans-Joachim Weigel of the Johann Heinrich von Thuenen Institute for rural areas, forestry and fisheries in the central city of Brunswick told AFP.

"Output increased by about 10 percent for barley, beets and wheat" when the plants were subjected to higher levels of carbon dioxide, Weigel said.

The Thuenen Institute, which has been monitoring the phenomenon in fields since 1999, trains CO2 jets on the plants so the gas reaches 550 parts per million in the air around them -- the level expected in the atmosphere by 2050.

Weigel said the studies have indicated that while greater CO2 exposure appears to spur growth, it can also undermine the quality of the produce.

He said the next step in the study would be to evaluate the effect of higher temperatures on plant growth -- which scientists cite as another consequence of higher CO2 emissions in the atmosphere.

Weigel said that while the institute's findings may prove surprising to some, they are not intended to undermine the drive to slash CO2 emissions.

Monday, July 7, 2008

As predicted, Bertha became a hurricane overnight, and we've seen the first articles published that managed to sneak in "global warming," though they're at least being a bit more honest after writing that deceptive first sentence.

Last season did not produce the predicted number of storms. There were more named storms but fewer hurricanes than predicted. Those hurricanes that did form intensified rapidly before landfall, and the first-ever record of back-to-back Category 5 landfalls came when Hurricanes Dean and Felix hit Central America. (The names Dean and Felix, along with Noel, a weaker but deadly 2007 Caribbean storm, have been retired.)

The last several months have seen a flurry of science related to global warming and hurricanes. A longtime proponent of the idea that warmer ocean temperatures will produce stronger storms, Kerry Emanuel, has called that hypothesis into doubt. But the government has said that warmer oceans will produce fewer, but stronger storms in the coming decades. The jury, it seems, is still out, as scientists study the complex forces that influence hurricane behavior.

Sunday, July 6, 2008

A new tropical storm (likely soon to be hurricane) named Bertha is brewing out there in the Atlantic, and it occurred to me that I haven't heard blame for it be assigned to global warming--YET!

Any takers on how long before this happens???!!! If it hits the U.S. and causes damage, I predict it won't take very long before the vultures (Gore, Kerry, Reid, Cullen, Nye, Hansen, etc.) start circling above.

This was on CNN two years ago, before we had the precipitous drop in the global mean temperature by 0.7 degrees this past winter, which caused alarmist scientists to invent "climate revisionism"--proclaiming that we'll have 10-20 years of cool temperatures caused by La Nina, which they say will "mask global warming." (LOL!)

Note all the images that CNN chooses to show behind the debaters: polar bears, floods, etc. Same old hysterical, fear-mongering crap - different day!

I used to like Bill Nye in my younger days; now I realize that he's susceptible to brainwashing and politics like everyone else. Heidi Cullen? Why didn't Larry King ask her about her desire to revoke professional credentials to all meteorologists who "deny" manmade global warming? Also, note all the images that CNN chooses to show behind the debaters: polar bears, floods, etc. Same old hysterical, fear-mongering crap! It's easy to tell from those images and Larry King's tone what CNN et al think about Dr. Lindzen and Julian Morris. It's the same story with most other media outlets, sadly.

Richard Lindzen was on Larry King Live a few nights ago discussing Global Warming with a panel of experts that included Bill Nye the Science Guy.A TV personality and former sketch comedy member against an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT.Julian Morris and Lindzen make excellent points for which the alarmists have no answer. It's the same old song and dance, they always mention the "consensus" and theIPCCreport.